43. PHILIPPINE AEOLUS AUTOMOTIVE UNITED CORPORATION/PAAUC and WON Cortez was validly dismissed?

Francis Chua v NLRC and Rosalinda Cortez G.R. No. 124617 April 28, 2000 Held: No.
R's claims:
BELLOSILLO, J. As early as her first year of employment Plant Mgr. William Chua,
manifested a special liking for her: he gave her special treatment and
Facts: would oftentimes invite her "for a date," which she refused.
Petitioner is Francis Chua president of PAAUC; Respondent Cortez was the Chua would often make sexual advances: touching her hands, putting
company nurse until her termination. his arms around her shoulders, running his fingers on her arms and
telling her she looked beautiful.
Oct 5, 1994: memorandum was issued by Ms. Myrna Palomares, Personnel This kept going for 4 years until it stopped and he threatened that if she
Manager of PAAUC, addressed to Respondent Cortez to explain why she threw a would not give in to his sexual advances he would cause her termination
stapler and hurled cuss words at her Mgr. William Chua, lost the P1,488 from the service
entrusted to her, and asking a co-employee to punch-in her time card thus He made good his threat when he started harassing her by transferring all her
making it appear that she was in the office in the morning of Sep 6 1994 when in belongings to a table with neither a telephone nor intercom, and without her
fact she was not. knowledge, hence the argument ensuing.
R refused the memorandum, and did not submit the required explanation even Complainant's Answers:
though a co-employee informed and discussed the memo with her. She was thus
Questioned why it took 4 years for R to reveal this sexual harassment, if
preventively suspended for 30 days.
there was such harassment, there should be complaints from her during
that period?
Oct 20, 1994: while R. Cortez was still under preventive suspension, another
memorandum was issued by the corporation giving her 72 hours to explain why No evidence that her act of throwing the stapler and uttering invectives
no disciplinary action should be taken against her for failing to process the ATM on William Chua were her immediate reaction to his amorous overtures.
applications of her 9 co-employees with the Allied Banking Corporation.
SC: gravamen of the offense in sexual harassment is not the violation of the
She also rejected the memo though it was read to her. R, however, this time employee's sexuality but the abuse of power by the employer. Any employee,
submitted a written explanation with respect to the loss of the P1,488.00 and the male or female, may rightfully cry "foul" provided the claim is well
punching-in of her time card by a co-employee. substantiated. Strictly speaking, there is no time period within which he or she
is expected to complain through the proper channels. The time to do so may
Nov 3,1994: PAAUC terminated Rs employment contract, Cortez filed for Illegal vary depending upon the needs, circumstances, and more importantly, the
dismissal, non-payment of annual service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay emotional threshold of the employee.
and damages against PAAUC and its president Francis Chua, in the NLRC who
dismissed her claim at first, but reversed their decision on appeal, finding the R admittedly allowed 4 years to pass before coming out with the sexual
Corporation guilty of illegal dismissal. harassment allegations,
Not many women, especially in this country, are made of the stuff that
P's MR was denied, hence, this petition for certiorari. can endure the agony and trauma of a public, even corporate,
The dearth of quality employment has become a daily "monster"
 roaming the streets that one may not be expected to give up one's
employment easily but to hang on to it, so to speak, by all tolerable
means.

Sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced "superiority" which is enough

to dampen an employee's spirit in her capacity for advancement.
In this case, such grave abuse of superiority was clear when her plant manager
showed an obvious partiality for her which went out of hand when he started to
make it clear that he would terminate her services if she would not give in to his
sexual advances.

Thus, for the anxiety, the seen and unseen hurt that she suffered, Ps should also
be made to pay her moral damages, plus exemplary damages, for the oppressive
manner with which Ps effected her dismissal from the service, and to serve as a
forewarning to lecherous officers and employers who take undue advantage of
their ascendancy over their employees.

Note: Other allegations against her were considered by SC as not constituting

serious misconduct, because it is either not connected with her work (which
would show unfitness) or the act was properly explained.

DECISION: NLRC decision, affirmed. However, in view of the strained relations

between the adverse parties, instead of reinstatement Ps should pay private
respondent separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of
service until finality of this judgment.
P25k for moral damages and P10k for exemplary damages. Costs against
petitioners.